Module 4 - Blog Responses

I responded to the following blogs:

Sanjay Sharma:
http://onlineinstructing.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/engaging-learners-with-new-strategies-and-tools/#comment-44

Reggie Malz:
http://educationaltechnologyrm.blogspot.com/2013/07/engaging-learners-with-new-strategies.html?showComment=1374940614706#c8429806282732809101

Sanjay
http://onlineinstructing.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/static-vs-dynamic/#comment-50

Module 4 - Communication, Collaboration, and Content

            There are many technological innovations available today that can be used for multiple purposes.  Instructors and students need to begin viewing the technology we already use as a learning tool, and asking how it can be integrated into distance education.  While some tools and strategies are more popular than others, it truly depends on using what will meet the student’s needs.  Within my graphic organizer I highlighted the well known tools and strategies that I have been using and found to be effective.  Distance education can be as successful as face to face learning when the technologies are appropriate for the instructional tasks (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p. 190).  It is vital to be able to effectively communicate, collaborate, and gain content knowledge through online learning.

            Collaboration and communication are critical between peers and instructors for online learning to be successful and meaningful.  There needs to be a sense of team building along with a way for students to share ideas and take more responsibility in their learning.  In order for open communication to occur there must be a sense of trust and respect established between users (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p. 191).  Google Docs allows students within a class or group to upload files, make edits, access documents, and collaborate online.  Wikispaces are used to promote asynchronous collaboration and communication among users.  Wall Wisher is excellent for sharing ideas and brainstorming.  It can be accessed from anywhere and be used simultaneously by multiple users.  According to Palloff and Pratt (2007), bogs allow students to reflect and comment on students work as a means of collaboration (p. 182).  Skype can be used to participate in online webinars, sharing, and real time learning.  Virtual chatrooms, social networks, and discussion boards are other ways students can engage with each other. 

            Podcasts, videos, PowerPoint, and databases assist with the delivery of content knowledge.  Podcasting can deliver voice content on demand, which increases the learners control over when they access it and how often (Palloff & Pratt, 2007, p. 90).  It is important for students to be able to access content at their leisure and in a variety of ways to meet their needs.  Videos are appealing to both auditory and visual learners, but databases would be strictly for those who learn best by reading. PowerPoint is a great way to meet all of the learning needs without the information feeling overwhelming.

            Blackboard is a resource that provides learners and instructors with a place to communicate, collaborate, and provide content.  Every online course I have taken has been through Blackboard.  It is a well known interactive tool that allows for both asynchronous and synchronous learning to occur.  “Asynchronous allows for students to access online materials anytime and synchronous learning promotes real-time interaction between students and instructors” (Ally, 2008, p. 17).  Problem-based learning (PBL) requires users to communicate and collaborate shared content over an online environment.  PBL can be tough in an online course, but promotes student interactivity, problem-solving skills, and meaningful learning of content (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p. 192).  It would require them to participate in discussions and share a variety of information across many platforms. 

            Online learning depends on technology to function and provide an overall quality education.  Technology tools must be used to their full potential to keep the learner engaged and to support online education.  We must begin to look at future trends in technology and view the already “common” technology in a different manner.  The entire course needs to function around the different users to ensure they are effectively collaborating, communicating, and receiving course content.

References

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 15-44). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for   

            the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Module 3 - Storyboard Feedback

I provided feedback to the following classmates regarding their storyboard:

Sanjay Sharma
http://onlineinstructing.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/storyboard-for-synchronous-vs-asynchronous-video-project/#comments

William Bell
http://williambellblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/multimedia-presentation/#comments

Kelly Stovall-Sapp
http://gasappwife.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/storyboard-for-educ-7102/#comments

Module 3 - Blog Responses

The two blogs I responded to are:

Sanjay Sharma
http://onlineinstructing.wordpress.com/

Theresa Wiggins
http://twiggins-family.blogspot.com/

Module 3: Assessing Collaborative Efforts

• How should participation in a collaborative learning community be assessed? How do the varying levels of skill and knowledge students bring to a course affect the instructor's "fair and equitable assessment" of learning? 
• If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, what should the other members of the learning community do? What role should the instructor play? What impact would this have on his or her assessment plan?

According to Palloff and Pratt (2005), it is best to assess collaboratively when assessing collaborative work and/or activities (p. 44).  I vividly remember a time in undergrad when we were given a group project to complete, and it turned out to be a horrible experience.  I was partnered with five students, two who were known for being lazy and not caring about their academics in the same way the rest of us did.  We split up the roles, and throughout the allotted time there was arguing and even refusal to participate.  When it came time to present I knew it was going to be a disaster, but all I could control was what I did.  We only received a group grade.  There was no individual assessment or peer assessment where we could have a voice about where the breakdown occurred.  “Students often have far more information about the workings of a small group than does the instructor” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 48).   Granted this was undergrad and we did not have all of the technology available today, it was still a frustrating experience.  I agree with Siemens in which instructors should not be the only assessor, but a group of learners should help assess each other in a peer manner using a rating scheme (Laureate Education, 2008).  The group could rate member’s performance, respond to open ended questions, or other various types of evaluating systems. The sole purpose of student assessment is for both students and instructor to gain feedback while supporting the learning process and student achievement (Palloff & Pratt, 2007, p. 206).

Learning environments contain students with varying levels of skill and knowledge.  Therefore, offering collaborative open communities are an easy way to provide students opportunities for natural feedback regardless of their level.  To encourage and motivate those students who have “less”, it is important for instructors to remember not all assessments should be a mark, but could be in the form of a comment (Laureate Education, 2008).  All assessment should be fair and consistent regardless of the student.   According to Siemens (2008), it is more valuable if the assessment is based on student growth, outcomes, and real context (Laureate Education).  Therefore, a low student who greatly increases in achievement since the first day should be highly recognized and rewarded.  Constant participation, even if not always correct should also receive recognition.  At least the student is making the attempt, and it could even be their way of seeking instruction, direction, or feedback.   

Guidelines should be arranged for those students who do not want to collaborate or network within their learning community.  Siemens feels it would assist instructors if they required groups to use a Wiki because it tracks how often students log on, and how much they contribute (Laureate Education, 2008). I experienced an issue last quarter in which I made numerous efforts to reach out to my group, and never received a response back.  I emailed my instructor letting him know of my attempts, where he could view them in Blackboard, and via our Wiki link (which I too created).  Piner (2013) agrees that after several attempts to contact the non-collaborative student, the group members should make the instructor aware of the situation (para. 4).  If this does occur within a group, all present members should continue working together on the given task.  The instructor should have set guidelines in the course introduction that explains the importance and expectations of online collaboration.  According to Palloff and Pratt (2007), it becomes the instructor’s responsibility to reach out to a member of a group if they are not participating, and remind them of the guidelines (p. 159).  The instructor will have to make changes to that group member’s assessment plan, and strongly encourage the student to begin participating wherever the group currently is.  I think points should be removed from their grade by the instructor, and guidelines for how it is determined should be included in the syllabus.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. United          States: Walden University

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for    the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community (pp. 3-    54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Piner, J. (2013, July 2).  Module 3: Assessing collaborative efforts. [Web log post].

            Retrieved from, http://jenniferpiner.blog.com/